@conference{
author = "Radenković, Marina and Živković, Sanja and Petrović, Jelena D. and Momčilović, Miloš and Medunić, Gordana",
year = "2021",
abstract = "X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) is the most commonly used non-destructive method offering the user a portable handheld analyzer that delivers fast, accurate results. On the other hand, in the past two decades, with recent advances in laser technology,laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) becomes a more and more popular analytical method for the analysis of solid samples. The ability to provide a fast and multielement analytical response directly from a solid sample makes both LIBS and XRF very versatile tools for soil analysis [1]. Both methods have their advantages, however, in certain circumstances, one is better to use over the other. This paper focuses on the analytical capability of both methods for soil quality management. The main LIBS advantage against XRF is that it can be used for detection of all elements of the Periodic Table, including light elements (C, N, O, S) important for estimation of soil quality [2]. For this paper, 2 samples of soil were used. A real sample was collected in the INS Vinča and certified reference material Metals in Soil obtained from Sigma Aldrich were used for these experiments. A real soil sample was dried at 70℃, homogenized, and sieved using a 100 mesh sieve. Single element calibration standards of Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, and Cd from J.T. Baker were used for standard addition samples preparation [3]. To homogenized sample portions of fixed mass (5 g) varying amounts of certified standard analyte solutions are added, and the mixture is diluted with 20 ml deionized water. Mixtures were homogenized and dried at 70℃ overnight. The obtained powdered materials were used for the preparation of pressed pellets, including the CRM sample. All samples were analyzed by a unique TEA CO2 based LIBS setup developed in INS Vinča and commercially available Niton XL3 handheld XRF analyzer, Thermo Fischer Scientific. The precision and accuracy of the LIBS method were evaluated and compared to those obtained by XRF. The preliminary results showed that limits of detection for most of the investigated elements are comparable or better than those obtained with XRF.",
publisher = "Belgrade : Serbian Chemical Society",
journal = "EMEC 21 : 21st European Meeting on Environmental Chemistry : Book of abstracts",
title = "Green Analytical Method Selection for Analysis of Soil: LIBS vs XRF",
pages = "101-101",
url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_vinar_12530"
}
